We are being watched.

[Gregory Matthews]

In another thread Stan said:

". . . [sDA] leade[r]s are checking this out . . . to see if it is worthwhile having their own forum. ALL churches in the NAD now have their own website, find yours at www.adventistchurchconnect.org. They all have an option to have a build in forum."

There is a movement on foot to get our local congregations involved in Internet milnistry. Denominational leaders are closely looking at the present Internet forums in an effort to form some kind of an idea as to what can be done on the Internet, and what cannot be expected.

They fully realeze that if our local congregations become involved in a somewhat free-flowing ministry such as takes place in this forum, and in others that it has dangers as well as benefits. In many ways, these forums are run by volunteers who are the typical members in our congregations. These leaders are looking at these forums to see what happens when this takes place.

They are also looking to see what happens when people who are denominational employees become involved in these forums. Some like Tom Wetmore, and I openly identify ourselves as to who we are, and our relationship to the denomination. Others do not, and are posting under penname.

These forums are controversal. Last year I contacted a denominational leader and requested permission to post an article of his, for discussion, in a section of CA that I moderated. In that discussion with him, he refused me permission, and in one post informed me of his very negative thoughts toward these Internet forums in general.

Out of courtesy to him, I then declined to post his article. I think we lost becaue of it. I have told him of my thinking the his article was seminal, and an imporant contribution to Adventist thought, on a current issue.

Interestingly enough, In a prior life, I worked with US copyright law, in obtaining permission to reproduce written material that others had written. The reality is that I did not need permission to post that article on the Internet. By making some slight changes, I could have posted it for discussion, and I would not have violated any law. But, I asked his permission. He refused. I then did not post it.

[CyberGuy]

It is unfortunate that the internet forums have such a bad reputation. It has been building since Ralphs origninal internet forum.

People attacking church leaders and church workers for what they post on the internet and what they do as church leaders or print in church magazines.

Because of this many church workers and church leaders will post under pen names only an will never post under their real name again on our own forums. That is a sad commentary on the Internet community.

I remember at an Alumni offering at our church the older gentleman trashed the internet communty for its attacks on that university in the past and praised the alumnus for it support of the university. I knew he was refering to an episode in 1999 on Ralph Blodets forum.

This just goes to show that people do not like the attitude shown here on the forums by a very small minority that ruin it for all of us.

[bonnie]

Gregory,

If you or anyone can explain to me what was even remotely funny about the so called humorous remark concerning our pastors and conference presidents and how we ,,,,um,,,,er,,, know how they get their sex on an adventist forum I will be the first to acknowledge I was wrong and publically aplogize to Neil,Stan and Bravus. All three seem to understand something I do not. In the current climate we have and the mistrust of clergy, the frequency of moral falls within our own denomination and others, I don't get the humor. Nothing in the number of lurkers would indicate a humorous response of any kind, or at least any more so than a humorous crack at those posting a sex related article in the first place. Would it be fair and funny to speculate that perhaps this is where these three individuals obtained their sexual gratification?? All for the entertainment of those reading of course. If they or others did not see it as funny, of course then we would know something were wrong with them. Apparently we have Neil's first hand knowledge of that.

I doubt seriously if you will answer frankly and honestly here, but I wish you would. What do you think my response would have been and how long do you think it would have lasted or how many would have thought it funny if I had said........

Neil, just because this is the only way you can get your sexual gratification this is no reason to subject the rest of us to what you consider humor.

It would not have stood longer than it took bravus or someone else from admin to see it. It is entirely inappropriate, it is far to personal and we all know how you feel about personal attacks.It certainly isn't funny, even if the excuse is made that we all see humor differently.

Now once more, explain to me, as a ordained pastor , what is even remotely funny about you as a pastor or the other 20% lurkers being pastors or conference presidents engaging in a little sick voyeurism and getting your sexual gratification from reading abour sex on an adventist forum.

Altho the namining of Steve McP is in another ballpark, it is tacky to say the least. Wouldn't take much to identify him for those that don't knw him. I happen to as he went to our church.

Now we know or are suppossed to believe that a conference president is here spying under an assumed name on Neil. Which could lead to the question of how does Neil know that and who told him?? Steve? Then it wouldn't make much sense to be here "undercover" would it? Makes you wonder then how.

If there is something between these to do it with out inuendo and implication about a conference preisident and making him look like a sneak. But that is minor compared to making you (general) as a pastor out to be a voyeur.

But again, explain the funny parts I have apparently missed about the sexual preferences of our pastors/leaders and I will publically apologize for thinking anything wrong other than someone having a different sense of humor

[Dr. Shane]

Internet forums allow freedom of speech in a way that denominational leaders cannot control. That can be intimidating for them. They can control what is printed in our books and magazines. They can control what is broadcast on our radio and television programs. They cannot control what is published on Internet forums like this.

Yet truth need have no fear of investigation. Many do not like Internet forums because they claim such forums increase doubt in the faith. That may be true. If it is, that is all the more reason the church should have more theologians involved in the Internet forums. These forums cannot be ignored. They are not going to go away. If they are causing doubt the organized church needs to get on board and not ignore them.

An Adventist forum needs people on board that are well capable of defending our beliefs. Losing Dwight Hornberger was a great loss for this forum. Iron Decon was another strong member. We need educated theologians that don't feel the need to live in a protected bubble.

[Stan]

Here is a forum that was started a little while ago. Google spends a lot of time there.

www.sabbathforums.com ihas a goal to become an awareness/defender of the sabbath. If you want to defend truth that is a good one to start with. There will be others come one there, such as the holy name people, who are sabbath keepers as well.

I would hope that it would not be a place to CORRECT everyone on the other issues, but rather keep it to the sabbath.

It is important that the admins on a forum do not try and make it a one-horse-show and not appear to be the sole defender of what ever is truth.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Internet forums allow freedom of speech in a way that denominational leaders cannot control.

---

This is true....And it allows members to interact and grow and learn. Because the internet is not controled by the denomination, Leadership is recognizing that values are changing [as evidenced of the addition of a new belief] ...and that there is a disparity between those who have internet access and those who do not. As a result, there are groups that are being left behind and some that are forging far ahead in thier understanding of scripture.

This allows some groups, like Hope International, to prey on those 'have not' groups and make other claims of ultra-conservativness and supposedly changing church values....Perhaps you have seen more ads in the other church publications like Creation...

The leadership of the church do not want to be caught unaware and do peruse the internet from time to time to see where various people are in thier values...and the reactions to various new and reoccuring ideas...

I think I can say that I am friends with more than one pastor...I can say with pretty good certanty that there is an atomsphere where a pastor has two faces- one face that is exposed to the public, and there is a private face that is rarely seen in the public and intensly guarded. While many of the Adventist public do not like to hear this, it is this private face that saves many a pastor from insanity in dealing with his contentious advenist flock.

We have a few Adventist pastors here who do not choose to reveal themselves. They know that church members, if they were to advise against current/traditional Adventist mores, would report them to the conference leadership. It has happened before on other adventist boards. To me, this is a violation of trust. I have taken the stance that if I find out such a thing happened, the betrayer(s) would know my ire.

The internet is like TV. It comes into your home. There are some rules associated with the Internet, in order to build trust, that must be maintained.

One of those rules is that you, as the individual, maintain internet courtesy. Treat others with respect.

The internet exists to hear opinions. You can voice yours...but it also voices others opinions equally valid as yours, and equally backed up by bibical standards.

This BBS exists to promote discussion, not to quell it into submission to YOUR values. If you don't like the values that are being voiced, and promoted, after making your voice heard, you can move to a different discussion. Or you might just want to listen and modify YOUR opinion...It could happen to you. Most here call that "growth". Some call it 'dangerous'.

The internet truely is a 'dangerous' place. You will be changed by it...It is too big for you to control it...but your opinion might modify it a bit....that is up to you.

[Stan]

No denominational leaders that I know fear these forums, I do get a number of positive comments, as well as overhear them.

The biggest concern is that they can hi-jack their time, answering routine almost semi-trivial questions, the same ones, over and over and over and over again.

An example would be the year-day. How many times has that been answered? It has been answered on this forum several times, yet it can become "Stop what ever you are doing and spend hours going over this with me, and I am not going to change my mind anyway, as it is made up from other decisions I have made"

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "If you or anyone can explain to me what was even remotely funny about . . . ."

Bonnie, I have not made one comment directed to this discussion. It is very simple. You and those discussing this are doing fine. My comment is not needed. I do not feel called to interject my thinking into every conversation that takes place in this forum.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

---

An example would be the year-day. How many times has that been answered? It has been answered on this forum several times, yet it can become "Stop what ever you are doing and spend hours going over this with me, and I am not going to change my mind anyway, as it is made up from other decisions I have made"

---

Another example would be the womens ordination issue. I remember on Ralph Blodgets interent forum how some would demand of the GC presidential who was our GC president Folkenberg at the time why he did not throw out the rebel churches that were ordaining women. He answered them that was up to the conferences and not the GC. Still he was hounded on that point until Folkenberg just refused to answer on those topics again.

Again people do not want answers as they want the adventist leadership to side with them on certain issues and intimidate or put down the other side. Something that is not wise to do as that would create a spilt in the church.

[CyberGuy]

A church sponsered forum does not work. The church will not allow certain topics to be discussed and then people get upset and trash the leadership for supressing freedom of speech both on the church forums and rival independant forums from disgruntled adventists.

An indenpendant forum is far better in the long run for allowing a more free discussion of topics that upset the church laity that the church leadership would not allow to be discussed on their church sponsered forums. This was proven when the church shut down Ralph Blodgets forum because they did not like the independant spirit of the discussions.

[Stan]

Good Points...

Plus we are living in a day when forums can be raised in a matter of moments, not committee need to approve and be paranoid etc.

I created on for the sabbath www.sabbathforums.com and would like to create one on a biblica prespective of what happens when you die.

Have a catchy name for it, IsThereSexAfterDeath.com it is parked here right now, but I think it could get a lot of attention, and then talk about Death:A Biblical perspective.com

Would want 4-5 people interested in this... other ideas for upholding the biblical concept of death?

Thoughts anyone?

Stan

PS that domain is parked here for now..

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Re: "If you or anyone can explain to me what was even remotely funny about . . . ."

Bonnie, I have not made one comment directed to this discussion. It is very simple. You and those discussing this are doing fine. My comment is not needed. I do not feel called to interject my thinking into every conversation that takes place in this forum.

---

Sorry if it sounded as if I were asking you to defend me or my opinion. I would not have addressed you at all except for the topic you began and the following statement......

Gregory said....There is a movement on foot to get our local congregations involved in Internet milnistry. Denominational leaders are closely looking at the present Internet forums in an effort to form some kind of an idea as to what can be done on the Internet, and what cannot be expected..

The whole topic that has evolved and been considered a joke by some along with Stan's statement confirming that indeed denominational leaders were reading the sex topics, I believe is one of the reasons you posted what you did.

I also would imagine they are wondering how to handle what some see as humor concerning what can be considered nothing but voyeurism by our pastors and conference leaders. I did not ask you to defend, only you or someone to explain the humor here. Again, I only asked you by name after you interjected this piece of information concerning a interest in opening up other internet forums. No one really needs to defend my position or interject their thinking into every topic. A interest by you had already been expressed along the lines of those lurking to observe. I know what I believe and can defend my own.

[Dr. Shane]

I have heard church leaders express concerns that Internet forums cause many to doubt the faith.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "The whole topic that has evolved and been considered a joke by some along with Stan's statement confirming that indeed denominational leaders were reading the sex topics, I believe is one of the reasons you posted what you did."

My reason for posting what I did, in a new thread, was to go to a discussion with a different focus, and to do so without hijacking the other thread. I expected the focus on Neiil's mentions of pastors reading the sex threads to remain in that thread, and that I would begin a thread that would probably recall the old days with Ralph B., and how denominational leaders would see positive and negative issues in local churches getting involved with forums such as we have here in CA.

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Re: "The whole topic that has evolved and been considered a joke by some along with Stan's statement confirming that indeed denominational leaders were reading the sex topics, I believe is one of the reasons you posted what you did."

My reason for posting what I did, in a new thread, was to go to a discussion with a different focus, and to do so without hijacking the other thread. I expected the focus on Neiil's mentions of pastors reading the sex threads to remain in that thread, and that I would begin a thread that would probably recall the old days with Ralph B., and how denominational leaders would see positive and negative issues in local churches

getting involved with forums such as we have here in CA.

---

Understood!!!

[David_McQueen]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

I have heard church leaders express concerns that Internet forums cause many to doubt the faith.

---

Surely it should be even more of an oportunity to confirm the faith. I know people like myself ask questions both here and offline that throw some people and often can be deemed heretical. But as we dont live in a bubble it is through many of these discussions that strength can be imparted. I think such leaders, if this comments is true Shane, should give people more credit.

[lazarus]

I took the decision to post as "lazarus" because I didn't feel comfortable posting as pastor of the X SDA church because someone would see me as a representative of that church or my conference and people know people.

Its easy for calls to be made, postings to be cut and pasted and used in the future. Thats a bit paranoid I guess but its better to be safe than sorry.

I 'd hate to miss out on the GC presidents job because of something I said about wearing jeans in the pulpit or buying a gun!

Saying that George Bush is a Dufus for example would not go down very well in an a church in Southern Virginia.

By the way....I didn't say the Prez was a Dufus!

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

By the way....I didn't say the Prez was a Dufus!

---

Uh-uh! I heard it! I heard it! I heard it! You did too! You did too! You did too!

we return you to your regularly scheduled Bulletin Board Forum....

[Gregory Matthews]

Haveyou forgotten? We may not know your name, but we have seen your face.

[lazarus]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Haveyou forgotten? We may not know your name, but we have seen your face.

---

[lazarus]

Ok Ok, I guess I'm being a bit paranoid........ I'd better come clean.............I'm Doug Batchelor!

[Clio]

Quote:

---

lazarus said:

Ok Ok, I guess I'm being a bit paranoid........ I'd better come clean.............I'm Doug Batchelor!

---

[Dr. Shane]

Do you think he is joking?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Do you think he is joking?

---

No, I think he's telling the truth, Shane...Haven't you had the experience where the name of a white person is also the name of a black person????

Ok, I will get out of my racial profiling mode now....

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think lazarus is black. I thought he said he wasn't.